Polytrack - an objective look

[cj]

Here is some stuff I track that should shed some light on polytrack.

The below charts lists the average pace times of the winner (not the leader at the pace call) for former dirt and now poly/cushion surfaces at the common distances. Final times held constant.

Fast tracks only, no maiden claiming races.

Turfway Dirt

6.0 46.26 71.94
6.5 46.30 78.48
8.0 72.77 99.20
8.5 73.00 106.00

Turfway Poly

6.0 46.30 71.94 (.04 slower)
6.5 46.32 78.48 (.02 slower)
8.0 73.05 99.20 (.28 slower)
8.5 73.26 106.00 (.26 slower)

Woodbine Main Dirt

6.0 46.10 71.94
6.5 46.13 78.48
7.0 46.21 85.04
8.5 72.96 106.00

Woodbine Polytrack

6.0 46.15 71.94 (.05 slower)
6.5 46.32 78.48 (.19 slower)
7.0 46.34 85.04 (.13 slower)
8.5 73.49 106.00 (.53 slower)

Hollywood Dirt

6.0 46.17 71.94
6.5 45.99 78.32
7.0 46.22 84.87
8.5 73.00 106.00

Hollywood Cushion

6.0 46.48 71.94 (0.41 slower)
6.5 46.30 78.32 (0.31 slower)
7.0 47.08 84.87 (0.86 slower)
8.5 73.80 106.00 (0.80 slower)


What I believe so far is that you can't spend as much energy early on polytrack as you can on dirt. The farther the race, the more this matters. Routes are more like turf races than dirt races.

I also think the Hollywood jockeys are causing the bigger differences, as they have adapted quicker than those at TP and WO. Many have said the Hollywood version is more speed friendly, but it appears that way to me only because they are going much slower earlier.

Anyway, interesting stuff for a geek like me, hope others find it interesting.

[kingfin66]

I find it very interesting. Thank you for posting this information.

[Tom]

Andy does some neat stuff with enegry by fractions that might be useful in evaluation of a horse's chances of winning on the new surface. It would interesting to hear his take on this, too.
But then again, maybe that is why he has been scarce lately - too busy raking it in??

[Turfday]

Is after a relevant sample size of races are run (at least on my "turf" at Hollywood Park), whether or not the favorites win percentage holds constant comparing to years past on the dirt track.

Has anyone been tracking this (comparing favorites win pct) at Turfway Park or at Woodbine to years past ?

[BillW]

Here's what I have at TP:

# avg Fav. W-W. Ave. Ave. Win % by Odds Range
Type Races Field Wins Wins Odds Purse <2:1 2-5 5-10 10-20 >20:1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 289 8.91 34% 19% 6.07 $ 15655 26% 37% 21% 11% 5%
Fast Track 289 8.91 34% 19% 6.07 $ 15655 26% 37% 21% 11% 5%
Synthetic-Fast 289 8.91 34% 19% 6.07 $ 15655 26% 37% 21% 11% 5%
Synthetic Routes 135 8.93 42% 15% 6.76 $ 17930 30% 35% 16% 10% 8%
Synthetic Sprints 154 8.90 27% 22% 5.46 $ 13661 21% 40% 25% 12% 2%

And WO:

# avg Fav. W-W. Ave. Ave. Win % by Odds Range
Type Races Field Wins Wins Odds Purse <2:1 2-5 5-10 10-20 >20:1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All 1337 8.56 32% 24% 5.70 $ 55974 24% 42% 21% 10% 4%
Fast Track 1125 8.62 32% 24% 5.63 $ 51658 24% 42% 21% 9% 4%
Off Track 212 8.25 31% 25% 6.07 $ 78874 24% 40% 22% 11% 4%
Dirt-Fast 368 8.13 36% 27% 4.78 $ 49629 30% 41% 20% 7% 2%
Inner Dirt-Fast 170 7.67 39% 27% 5.01 $ 45345 34% 42% 14% 9% 3%
Synthetic-Fast 486 9.08 27% 22% 6.21 $ 47714 16% 44% 25% 11% 4%
Dirt-Off 112 7.44 33% 29% 4.47 $ 44091 31% 36% 23% 9% 1%
Inner Dirt-Off 31 6.77 35% 35% 4.49 $ 53542 26% 45% 23% 6% 0%
Turf-Fast 101 9.72 29% 17% 7.00 $ 88656 20% 42% 22% 11% 6%
Turf-Off 69 10.22 26% 14% 9.38 $146713 12% 43% 19% 16% 10%
Dirt Routes 101 7.26 40% 25% 5.26 $ 64194 33% 38% 21% 6% 3%
Inner Dirt Routes 57 7.60 35% 25% 5.29 $ 43467 26% 47% 14% 11% 4%
Synthetic Routes 161 8.72 25% 18% 5.88 $ 56301 17% 48% 22% 9% 4%
Dirt Sprints 379 8.16 34% 28% 4.56 $ 44111 29% 40% 21% 8% 2%
Inner Dirt Sprints 144 7.51 40% 30% 4.78 $ 47853 35% 40% 15% 8% 2%
Synthetic Sprints 325 9.26 29% 24% 6.37 $ 43461 16% 42% 26% 12% 5%

I have to dig a bit to go back past 3/06 when I switched data sources.

Bill

[TRM]

Thanks CJ......

[JustRalph]

Bill and CJ. Good stuff, thanks.

[Lefty]

Turfway scraped opver 42 tons of goop off the top of their Polytrack surface before their season started.
Sat at Hol Jockeys complained the backstretch was bumpy. The races at Hol delayed 40+ min Sunday.
These things supposed to be maintenance free?
My guess, in a few yrs it'll be back to dirt everywhere.

[maxwell]

Woodbine is also having problems; too much fibre, and too many horses in the a.m. - also something about the plastic coating sticking together.

The pros have said from the get-go that poly was a slower surface and tends to favor turf runners. CJ points out that routes are even more like turf races - this makes me feel even better about being a sprint/speed player.

Most new toys need to be tweeked so I'm not really surprised.

[1st time lasix]

Yesterday {Sunday} at Hollywood it appeared that there was a speed bias. The commentators observing on TVG also commented on it. Is it possible that it can change too?

[kenwoodallpromos]

Yesterday {Sunday} at Hollywood it appeared that there was a speed bias. The commentators observing on TVG also commented on it. Is it possible that it can change too?
________________
Most of Sunday's AW winners had decent time between races (about 3-6 weeks), were close to the pace, ITM last race, and same or down in class.
Consistent horses with some speed but good stamina. Just like most winners so far this meet.
The "closers" that have won were still not very many lengths back at points of call, just maybe behind the wall early so 1st call placing looked bad.
Please let me know if anyone sees any cards at Hollywood where most winners were more than 6 lengths back at any calls. Thanks.

[Robert Fischer]

great information here

[cj]

Yesterday {Sunday} at Hollywood it appeared that there was a speed bias. The commentators observing on TVG also commented on it. Is it possible that it can change too?

I don't really see a bias yesterday. The fractions were slower than the average as well, helping horses near the front.

Fractions aside, how is this a bias?

1st race, horse won wire to wire as 8 to 5 favorite.
2nd race, horse won from the middle of the pack, being between 3 and 4 lengths back for the first 3/4 miles.
4th race, horse won near the front, while nosing out the favorite who was blocked until late and nearly got up anyway.
5th race, horse won near the lead while very wide the whole way at 6-1.
7th race, favorite goes wire to wire.
8th race, horse comes from dead last saving ground before moving out to win in the last strides, running down the 3 to 5 favorite.

So, in 6 dirt races, you had winners from inside, outside, front, midpack, and back. If that is a bias, I guess there was one. If not, TVG might need a new expert.

[Tom]

I also read that part of the Polywood problem was a horse broke down during works and had to be euthanized - not good advertising.

I did some energy checking today at holywood vs Polywood, using percent energy for each fraction, but neglected to email it home from work - will post it Tuesday.
I compared what percentof total energy (F1+F2+F3) for each fraction dirt to poly and graphed the results - there are noticable differences that look similar distance to distance. %Median is significantly lower that is was before.

[PaceAdvantage]

twindouble asked me to move the following post into this thread:

I have no use for these type of stats. I'm more interested in the race in hand and how I think it will shape up and run. You can get value or no value at any distance on any surface. To me, as said in the decision thread, this is all baggage.

Granted there's "questions" on the poly track because it runs counter to what we've been confronted with for many years. The fact that it's a composite material put us on the defense right off. It doesn't surprise me maintenance problems would arise only because we in the contracting business are aware some composites aren't meant to be exposed to the elements whereas others are. Geographic climates can as you all know can be extreme depending on where you are. The question is, can it be managed as said here. I would find it hard to believe this material wasn't put through a longevity test under those changing conditions along with the abuse it would get on a track.

I haven't changed my methods of handicapping poly or not, as a matter of fact It's leaning a "little" more in my favor. That or luck is with me lately, can never exclude that. I'm not suggesting that the stats that cj posted or anyone else have NO meaning, what I am suggesting is you don't chuck all the basics that have worked for you right along and one of those is the ability to make minor adjustments as things change, that only opens opertunity. At this point my attention is on the trainers, where they enter their horses, what distances, what tracks, be it poly, turf, dirt and and what surface they train on. They know better as to what's going on, well maybe not all.

Good luck,

T.D.

[Bruddah]

a handicapper with a post, which makes sense. I have always said, Trainer Intent for each meet (track) is the key to making money at this game. Keep specific detailed stats for each trainer, based upon the track. Each meet serves as a part of a year long game plan. Usually repeated, year after year.

[DanG]

Good thread as usual CJ…:ThmbUp:

[xciceroguy]

That's nice food for thought, good job and thank's for taking the time to post.

[cj]

I totally forgot to post Keeneland, doh! Maybe since it was such a short meet. Keeneland had other work done to the track in addition to the surface change, so it isn't possible to know how much of the difference is from polytrack and how much from the change in the geometry of the track.

Kee Dirt

6.0 46.34 71.94
6.5 46.21 78.48
7.0 46.14 85.04
7.3 46.05 88.61
8.5 73.06 106.00
9.0 73.60 112.80


Kee Poly

6.0 47.59 71.94 (1.25 slower)
6.5 47.92 78.48 (1.71 slower)
7.0 47.89 85.04 (1.75 slower)
7.3 47.80 88.61 (1.75 slower)
8.5 75.01 106.00 (1.95 slower)
9.0 76.33 112.80 (2.27 slower)